P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) LETTERS Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge. in Special Civil Application No. 5769 of 1988. The appellant came forward with the Special Civil Application for quashing and setting aside the order of discharge dated 30-8-1985 and the older of the appellate authority dated 24-10-1985. The appellant who is an employee of the Bank has committed serious offences which will amount to embezzlement. ( 2 ) IT was alleged that he had removed the clearing cheque for Rs. 20 0 listed by Ashram Road Branch in their clearing Remittance list to Kalupur Circle Branch while bringing the clearing instruments from Ashram Road branch on 28-6-1983. He also cancelled the item of Rs. 20 0 listed in the original copy of the clearing Remittance list dated 28-6- 1983 for clearing cheques presented by Ashram Road Branch. The second charge-sheet served on him shows that cheque for Rs. 3 0 drawn by him on his S. B. account with Kalupur Circle 13ranch was surreptitiously removed by him and destroyed. On these two charges there was an enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority has discharged him from service. It is as against this order of discharge the appellant herein came forward with the Special Civil Application. The learned single Judge of our High Court after discussing the charges levelled against the appellant herein found that the appellant has not made out my case for interference with the order of discharge passed by the Disciplinary Authority. With this observation the petition was summarily rejected. As against this order the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. D. T. Soni the learned Counsel who has been appointed by the Legal Aid Com- mittee strenuously contended that the order of discharge is onerous and should not have been imposed upon him. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for respondents sub- mitted that even though the appellant pleaded guilty the respondents after instituting a proper departmental enquiry discharged the appellant from service. Mr. D. T. Soni learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that some lenient view ought to have been taken both by the Disciplinary Authority and the court by giving lesser punishment than that of discharge. Mr. D. T. Soni learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that some lenient view ought to have been taken both by the Disciplinary Authority and the court by giving lesser punishment than that of discharge. The charges levelled against the appellant which have been proved after proper enquiry are serious in nature and amount to embezzlemess is not as if the charges were held proved only on the admission made by the appellant herein but on proper enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. ( 4 ) MR. Soni cited various decisions in support of his contention that the authority should have taken a lenient view in according the punishment rather than passing an order of discharge from service. He cited the decision in the case of H. P. Thakore v. States of Gujarat and Others reported in XX (1)G. L. R. 109. A learned single Judge of our High Court on the facts and circumstances of that particular case held that:. . . . Before imposing the economic death penalty or dismissal or removal from service a disciplinary authority is bound to apply his mind to the three vital considerations namely (1) as regards the nature and magnitude of the established charge (2) of retaining the Government servant in service in the context of the charges found proved against him and (3) as to what a penalty lesser than the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal would prove adequate. In that case the main charge was that the petitioner therein was found habitually remaining absent from duty. There is also another charge of keeping a sum of Rs. 20. 00 without depositing the same immediately into the Treasury. On those charges the petitioner therein was dismissed from service. In such circumstances the learned single Judge of our High Court has correctly hold that such a disproportionate punishment which virtually imposes an economic death penalty on the Party concerned should not be resorted to. We do not think that the said decision can have any application to the facts of the present case. ( 5 ) THE next decision cited by Shri Soni is one in the case of Natverbhai S. Makwana v. Union Bank of India and Others reported in 1984 G. L. H. 791. We do not think that the said decision can have any application to the facts of the present case. ( 5 ) THE next decision cited by Shri Soni is one in the case of Natverbhai S. Makwana v. Union Bank of India and Others reported in 1984 G. L. H. 791. This is a case in which a learned single Judge of our High Court considering the question of admission of guilty the party concerned observed that it is the duty of the Enquiry Authority to go into the matter in- stead of basing its decision on the admission itself. In his judgment he has carefully worded the conclusion by slating that:xxx Ordinarily admission alone of the delinquent officer cannot be regarded as suf- ficient proof of misconduct as well as the facts constituting misconduct. Citing this decision Mr. Soni submitted that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have discharged the appellant from service only on the admission made by him regarding the charges levelled against the appellant herein. Factually it is not correct. the Enquiry Officer has conducted in Enquiry in detail and came to the conclusion on the evidence before him that the charges levelled against the appellant have been proved. As we have observed already the charges are very serious in nature and correctly the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of discharge in this case. We do not think that the Judgment cited by the learned Counsel will have any application to the facts and circumstances of the personal case. ( 6 ) FINALLY Mr. Soni citing the decision in the case of Shankar Dass v. Union of India reported in AIR 1985 SC 772 contended that considering the adverse situation in which the appellant has been put in the punishment of discharge accorded to him cannot be sustained. In the above said reported decision the party therein instead of depositing the whole amount which was in his hands has deposited only a pan of it. In that case the party has retained about Rs. 500. 00 in his hands. The learned Magistrate of First Class Delhi has no option except to convict him for the offence of criminal breach of trust. In that case the party has retained about Rs. 500. 00 in his hands. The learned Magistrate of First Class Delhi has no option except to convict him for the offence of criminal breach of trust. Nevertheless the learned Magis- trate after adverting to the situation in which the party therein was put released him under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 After this on the departmental enquiry for the very same offence the party therein was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dis- missal the party therein filed a suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the additional Senior Sub-Judge Delhi in the year 1968 on appeal. When a appeal was preferred to the High Court a learned single Judge of the High Court reserved the finding of the courts below and directed reinstalment. Against allowing of the appeal by the learned single Judge of the High Court a letters patent appeal was filed by the Government and the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed. Against that order the party approached the Supreme Court and the case carne up for hearing before the Supreme Court after a lapse of 11 years. Adverting to the facts of that case the Supreme Court set aside the order passed in the Letter Patent Appeal by the Delhi High Court and directed reinstatement of the party therein in service forth with with full back wages. That is not the ease in the present contentions raised by the appellant herein. The charges are serious and the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved. On that the Disciplinary Authority has discharged the appellant from service. Hence we do not think that this case cited by Mr. Soni can have any application to the facts of the present ease. ( 7 ) FINALLY Mr. Soni contended that the Enquiry Officer acted as the Disciplinary Authority and discharged the appellant from service and this is against the principles of natural justice. The settlement between the Management and Workmen of the bank in Clause 3 specifically states that the Disciplinary Authority may conduct the enquiry himself or appoint another officer as Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conduct any enquiry. Thus it is clear that the Disciplinary authority is empowered to conduct the enquiry himself and act accordingly. The settlement between the Management and Workmen of the bank in Clause 3 specifically states that the Disciplinary Authority may conduct the enquiry himself or appoint another officer as Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conduct any enquiry. Thus it is clear that the Disciplinary authority is empowered to conduct the enquiry himself and act accordingly. The appellant was given an opportunity to place his case before the Enquiry Officer and the Dis- ciplinary Authority after getting itself convinced with regard to the charges levelled against the appellant discharged him from service. Hence we do not find any question of failure of natural justice arises in this case. ( 8 ) FOR all these reasons we do not find any merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant herein and accordingly this letters Patent Ap- peal is dismissed. .